6 ms·

I don't know if I agree with that. Some theists believe that we shouldn't tamper with God's perfect creation, because everything happens for a reason (includin

I don't know if I agree with that. Some theists believe that we shouldn't tamper with God's perfect creation, because everything happens for a reason (including miscarriages, birth defects, and genetic diseases.) Atheists might believe that natural selection has got us this far, so it must be a pretty good process. A scientist shouldn't change anything, because they will be adding unnecessary risk to the natural process of evolution. But you have to think about the "baseline". Natural selection is actually a brutal and horrific process where genes are just mutated at random. 50% of all pregnancies end in a miscarriage. Birth defects occur in 3% of all live births, and they account for 21% of all infant deaths. Nature is already a mad scientist that runs random experiments on babies. I read that humans have about 30 genetic mutations per generation [1]. So imagine if a scientist picks 1 gene at random, and they use CRISPR to randomly change that gene. Now the embryo has around ~31 random mutations. Isn't that basically the same result as natural selection? You probably wouldn't even be able to tell that the scientist had changed anything. Is that an accurate way of looking at it, or am I missing something? [1] http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/genetics.html http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/genetics.html

freeone3000 8y ago
It's an accurate way of looking at it, but it assumes humans have a lesser value because lots of them already die, so what's a few more? The difference is a few humans, and that's too big a risk, in my opinion, to take lightly.
- nathan_f77 8y ago
  Sure, but the scientist is trying to reduce the risk of death and suffering. (They're not just flipping a coin to see what happens.) We already know a lot about certain genes and what they do. For example, mutations in the HBB gene cause sickle cell anemia. Removing the mutation in that HBB gene is a good idea 100% of the time. You can just look at the 99% (?) of healthy people who have an HBB gene without that mutation. Maybe the CRISPR process is risky and can cause lots of unexpected mutations. In that case it's not so black-and-white. But if you can edit a gene to prevent a disease, and it can be done in a safe way, then I don't think it's inherently unethical. (Although you could argue that it might be more ethical for parents to adopt a baby and donate money to charity, instead of spending a lot of money on gene-editing and IVF.)
  - danenania 8y ago
    The problem is that we don’t know whether this would prevent diseases with any reasonable certainty, and using non-consenting human beings to try to find out implies a profoundly dangerous devaluation of human life and individual rights. If you can reach a high certainty level through other kinds of tests, then that would be another story.
    - nathan_f77 8y ago
      Sickle cell disease affects millions of people, and it's the most common inherited blood disorder. We know for sure that certain mutations in the HBB gene cause sickle cell disease, so I think there is 100% certainty when you're correcting this specific mutation. People who don't inherit this mutation don't get sickle cell anemia. (Because their HBB gene doesn't produce blood cells that are shaped like sickles.) I didn't realize that CRISPR gene editing can cause damage to other genes [1], so it might not worth it yet. If there was a perfect CRISPR procedure that had no other side effects, then it would be hard to argue against that. [1] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/07/180719165032.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/07/180719165032.h...
    - zeroname 8y ago
      > The problem is that we don’t know whether this would prevent diseases with any reasonable certainty, and using non-consenting human beings to try to find out implies a profoundly dangerous devaluation of human life and individual rights. I sure hope you are pro-life, otherwise making "consent" and "individual rights" a foundation of your view would be pretty hypocritical. In my view, if you aren't even a fetus yet, you can't possibly have any rights. You're not a human being. During IVF, you select the embryo with the best health prospects - the rest may be destroyed. Keep in mind I only disagree with the foundation, I still think the procedure is unethical because the scientific basis is poor.
      - danenania 8y ago
        Being pro-choice doesn’t require nullification of an unborn child’s rights. It’s the recognition that the mother’s right to agency over her own body takes precedence. That does not imply that a doctor or researcher has the right to risk causing debilitating life-long symptoms to another human being at any stage of development without a clear medical justification. By your reasoning, because an embryo has no rights whatsoever, it would be fine to experiment wantonly for the sake of producing circus attractions. I presume you wouldn’t actually support this? I also fail to see how the scientific basis is relevant to the ethical question. Whether the science is good or not, we’re talking about unnecessary procedures with inherent failure rates that can have brutal life-long consequences. I can’t see how someone can support this unless they are fundamentally lacking in empathy. As I asked another poster elsewhere in the thread, do you really think you would feel the same if something like this had been done to you and caused you to live with a painful deformity? Would you care then whether the science was good?
- jamesrcole 8y ago
  > The difference is a few humans, and that's too big a risk, in my opinion, to take lightly. You're assuming it's riskier, in terms of lives, to try this technology. But it could be -- and obviously it's up in the air, which is my point -- that without such technology many more people will end up dying. The status quo is never neutral with respect to risks. What if it was used to provide immunity to malaria, as a hypothetical example?
bencollier49 8y ago
"Theists believe that we shouldn't tamper with God's perfect creation" Steady with the generalisations there. Your polarised US and various other places might be home to fewer liberal religionists, but that is not necessarily an accurate statement.
sho 8y ago
> Nature is already a mad scientist that runs random experiments on babies. Excellent way of putting it. I'm adding that quote to my arsenal..
carbocation 8y ago
This is an inaccurate understanding of CRISPR, which is not yet at the point where zero off-target effects can be expected. That is an important aspect of this discussion.
- hackinthebochs 8y ago
  But if the off-target effect is random, then its not really any worse off than an unmodified embryo, with around 30 random mutations naturally. Of course, the actual numbers matter but in principle this isn't a worse situation.
  - carbocation 8y ago
    > But if the off-target effect is random, then its not really any worse off than an unmodified embryo, with around 30 random mutations naturally. Of course, the actual numbers matter but in principle this isn't a worse situation. There is strong evidence that high mutation rates are selected against, to the point that some have speculated that driving down mutation rate is one of the key functions of selection[1]. Point being that increasing the number of germline variants is an extremely important consideration. The fact that the underlying biological replication mechanisms are not 100% perfect does not alter this point, and certainly doesn't mean that when you artificially increase the number of mutations that "this isn't a worse situation". 1 = https://www.nature.com/articles/nrg.2016.104 https://www.nature.com/articles/nrg.2016.104
wagutina 8y ago
Are you trying to justify innocent human experiments by saying nature is doing it anyway ? Nature is a mad scientist, unfair and horrible so let's be like it ? Maybe if you were seriously ill because of a genetic experiment we did on you (and that you did not need) as you were an embryo, then you would not hold the same view. I don't think you get where the morality problem is... It's not about being Amish that say "we shouldn't temper with God's perfect creation". It's about a country doing human experimentation on innocent people that do not need it, it's not to cure them from an heridetary problem but to breed a stronger race. China will only show the success of their experiments and will hide from the eyes of the world all the failures, handicapped babies, secondary effects of their human experiments. They'll make experiments on babies with lots of failure (it's science, you never get it right at the first experiment) and once in a while they'll put a video on YouTube like they just did saying "Aw look how healthy they are". But behind there going to be a lot of guinea pig children with serious secondary effects. And the worth part is how they'll make sure the rest of the world never see those "failed" children. This might be Nazi-level stuff that's going to happen and this is what people with a glimpse of ethics left are concerned about, it's not about "not tempering with God's perfect creation"
- nathan_f77 8y ago
  I think you're mainly talking about the worst case situation, which is obviously terrible: Unethical scientists performing unethical experiments for an unethical government. I'm not arguing for that, and I don't think it's the only possible situation. > "it's science, you never get it right at the first experiment" > "there is going to be a lot of guinea pig children with serious secondary effects" I don't think so. If this does happen then it would be extremely sad, but I don't think it's very likely. Scientists are far more careful than that. A new drug has to go through many stages before it is ever tested in clinical trials, and these human trials are generally very safe. So I'm just trying to say that if this is done properly and with a lot of safeguards, then gene-editing is not inherently unethical. But you're probably right about China. They have a horrible history of human-rights abuses, and I think they are much more likely to get this wrong. Even if it's not a government program, Chinese companies don't have a great track record [1]. I wouldn't be surprised if they were already performing some reckless experiments, and all of these people should locked up. [1] https://qz.com/1323471/ten-years-after-chinas-melamine-laced-infant-milk-tragedy-deep-distrust-remains/ https://qz.com/1323471/ten-years-after-chinas-melamine-laced...
Noos 8y ago
I don't think Christians (theism is just a code word for this, true lower-case theists are rare) feel this way, since they acknowledge the world is not pristine due to the fall of man, and suffering and pain exist. Usually the argument on that is that man is made in the image of God, and has special value due to this. They act as stewards of creation and reflections of God himself, and shouldn't be treated like animals. I'd also argue that non-natural selection can be worse. We have crude forms of it through pet breeding, and cats come to mind. The Scottish Fold in particular: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Fold https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Fold I worry non-natural selection could follow the path of the fold and various toy breeds.
- nathan_f77 8y ago
  That's a good point. I'm sure there are many Christians who would be comfortable with gene-editing to prevent disease. And people hold a wide variety of beliefs, so I shouldn't have made such a broad generalization. Also pet breeding is a great example. But I think that's one of the advantage of CRISPR over selective breeding. Selective breeding results in lots of genetic problems like hip dysplasia, arthritis, etc. because the gene pool is too small. But I think CRISPR could probably fix most of these issues by splicing in the healthy genes from other dog breeds. Although I just found this article: https://splinternews.com/meet-the-guy-biohacking-puppies-to-make-them-glow-in-th-1793862258 https://splinternews.com/meet-the-guy-biohacking-puppies-to-... I didn't realize there was a DIY bio-hacking community just playing around with CRISPR in their backyard shed. This is concerning.

freeone3000 8y ago

It's an accurate way of looking at it, but it assumes humans have a lesser value because lots of them already die, so what's a few more? The difference is a few humans, and that's too big a risk, in my opinion, to take lightly.

nathan_f77 8y ago
Sure, but the scientist is trying to reduce the risk of death and suffering. (They're not just flipping a coin to see what happens.) We already know a lot about certain genes and what they do. For example, mutations in the HBB gene cause sickle cell anemia. Removing the mutation in that HBB gene is a good idea 100% of the time. You can just look at the 99% (?) of healthy people who have an HBB gene without that mutation. Maybe the CRISPR process is risky and can cause lots of unexpected mutations. In that case it's not so black-and-white. But if you can edit a gene to prevent a disease, and it can be done in a safe way, then I don't think it's inherently unethical. (Although you could argue that it might be more ethical for parents to adopt a baby and donate money to charity, instead of spending a lot of money on gene-editing and IVF.)
- danenania 8y ago
  The problem is that we don’t know whether this would prevent diseases with any reasonable certainty, and using non-consenting human beings to try to find out implies a profoundly dangerous devaluation of human life and individual rights. If you can reach a high certainty level through other kinds of tests, then that would be another story.
  - nathan_f77 8y ago
    Sickle cell disease affects millions of people, and it's the most common inherited blood disorder. We know for sure that certain mutations in the HBB gene cause sickle cell disease, so I think there is 100% certainty when you're correcting this specific mutation. People who don't inherit this mutation don't get sickle cell anemia. (Because their HBB gene doesn't produce blood cells that are shaped like sickles.) I didn't realize that CRISPR gene editing can cause damage to other genes [1], so it might not worth it yet. If there was a perfect CRISPR procedure that had no other side effects, then it would be hard to argue against that. [1] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/07/180719165032.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/07/180719165032.h...
  - zeroname 8y ago
    > The problem is that we don’t know whether this would prevent diseases with any reasonable certainty, and using non-consenting human beings to try to find out implies a profoundly dangerous devaluation of human life and individual rights. I sure hope you are pro-life, otherwise making "consent" and "individual rights" a foundation of your view would be pretty hypocritical. In my view, if you aren't even a fetus yet, you can't possibly have any rights. You're not a human being. During IVF, you select the embryo with the best health prospects - the rest may be destroyed. Keep in mind I only disagree with the foundation, I still think the procedure is unethical because the scientific basis is poor.
    - danenania 8y ago
      Being pro-choice doesn’t require nullification of an unborn child’s rights. It’s the recognition that the mother’s right to agency over her own body takes precedence. That does not imply that a doctor or researcher has the right to risk causing debilitating life-long symptoms to another human being at any stage of development without a clear medical justification. By your reasoning, because an embryo has no rights whatsoever, it would be fine to experiment wantonly for the sake of producing circus attractions. I presume you wouldn’t actually support this? I also fail to see how the scientific basis is relevant to the ethical question. Whether the science is good or not, we’re talking about unnecessary procedures with inherent failure rates that can have brutal life-long consequences. I can’t see how someone can support this unless they are fundamentally lacking in empathy. As I asked another poster elsewhere in the thread, do you really think you would feel the same if something like this had been done to you and caused you to live with a painful deformity? Would you care then whether the science was good?
jamesrcole 8y ago
> The difference is a few humans, and that's too big a risk, in my opinion, to take lightly. You're assuming it's riskier, in terms of lives, to try this technology. But it could be -- and obviously it's up in the air, which is my point -- that without such technology many more people will end up dying. The status quo is never neutral with respect to risks. What if it was used to provide immunity to malaria, as a hypothetical example?

bencollier49 8y ago

"Theists believe that we shouldn't tamper with God's perfect creation" Steady with the generalisations there. Your polarised US and various other places might be home to fewer liberal religionists, but that is not necessarily an accurate statement.

sho 8y ago

> Nature is already a mad scientist that runs random experiments on babies. Excellent way of putting it. I'm adding that quote to my arsenal..

carbocation 8y ago

This is an inaccurate understanding of CRISPR, which is not yet at the point where zero off-target effects can be expected. That is an important aspect of this discussion.

hackinthebochs 8y ago
But if the off-target effect is random, then its not really any worse off than an unmodified embryo, with around 30 random mutations naturally. Of course, the actual numbers matter but in principle this isn't a worse situation.
- carbocation 8y ago
  > But if the off-target effect is random, then its not really any worse off than an unmodified embryo, with around 30 random mutations naturally. Of course, the actual numbers matter but in principle this isn't a worse situation. There is strong evidence that high mutation rates are selected against, to the point that some have speculated that driving down mutation rate is one of the key functions of selection[1]. Point being that increasing the number of germline variants is an extremely important consideration. The fact that the underlying biological replication mechanisms are not 100% perfect does not alter this point, and certainly doesn't mean that when you artificially increase the number of mutations that "this isn't a worse situation". 1 = https://www.nature.com/articles/nrg.2016.104 https://www.nature.com/articles/nrg.2016.104

wagutina 8y ago

Are you trying to justify innocent human experiments by saying nature is doing it anyway ? Nature is a mad scientist, unfair and horrible so let's be like it ? Maybe if you were seriously ill because of a genetic experiment we did on you (and that you did not need) as you were an embryo, then you would not hold the same view. I don't think you get where the morality problem is... It's not about being Amish that say "we shouldn't temper with God's perfect creation". It's about a country doing human experimentation on innocent people that do not need it, it's not to cure them from an heridetary problem but to breed a stronger race. China will only show the success of their experiments and will hide from the eyes of the world all the failures, handicapped babies, secondary effects of their human experiments. They'll make experiments on babies with lots of failure (it's science, you never get it right at the first experiment) and once in a while they'll put a video on YouTube like they just did saying "Aw look how healthy they are". But behind there going to be a lot of guinea pig children with serious secondary effects. And the worth part is how they'll make sure the rest of the world never see those "failed" children. This might be Nazi-level stuff that's going to happen and this is what people with a glimpse of ethics left are concerned about, it's not about "not tempering with God's perfect creation"

nathan_f77 8y ago
I think you're mainly talking about the worst case situation, which is obviously terrible: Unethical scientists performing unethical experiments for an unethical government. I'm not arguing for that, and I don't think it's the only possible situation. > "it's science, you never get it right at the first experiment" > "there is going to be a lot of guinea pig children with serious secondary effects" I don't think so. If this does happen then it would be extremely sad, but I don't think it's very likely. Scientists are far more careful than that. A new drug has to go through many stages before it is ever tested in clinical trials, and these human trials are generally very safe. So I'm just trying to say that if this is done properly and with a lot of safeguards, then gene-editing is not inherently unethical. But you're probably right about China. They have a horrible history of human-rights abuses, and I think they are much more likely to get this wrong. Even if it's not a government program, Chinese companies don't have a great track record [1]. I wouldn't be surprised if they were already performing some reckless experiments, and all of these people should locked up. [1] https://qz.com/1323471/ten-years-after-chinas-melamine-laced-infant-milk-tragedy-deep-distrust-remains/ https://qz.com/1323471/ten-years-after-chinas-melamine-laced...

Noos 8y ago

I don't think Christians (theism is just a code word for this, true lower-case theists are rare) feel this way, since they acknowledge the world is not pristine due to the fall of man, and suffering and pain exist. Usually the argument on that is that man is made in the image of God, and has special value due to this. They act as stewards of creation and reflections of God himself, and shouldn't be treated like animals. I'd also argue that non-natural selection can be worse. We have crude forms of it through pet breeding, and cats come to mind. The Scottish Fold in particular: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Fold https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Fold I worry non-natural selection could follow the path of the fold and various toy breeds.

nathan_f77 8y ago
That's a good point. I'm sure there are many Christians who would be comfortable with gene-editing to prevent disease. And people hold a wide variety of beliefs, so I shouldn't have made such a broad generalization. Also pet breeding is a great example. But I think that's one of the advantage of CRISPR over selective breeding. Selective breeding results in lots of genetic problems like hip dysplasia, arthritis, etc. because the gene pool is too small. But I think CRISPR could probably fix most of these issues by splicing in the healthy genes from other dog breeds. Although I just found this article: https://splinternews.com/meet-the-guy-biohacking-puppies-to-make-them-glow-in-th-1793862258 https://splinternews.com/meet-the-guy-biohacking-puppies-to-... I didn't realize there was a DIY bio-hacking community just playing around with CRISPR in their backyard shed. This is concerning.